Tibet and Authoritarianism

Over the past two weeks, civil unrest in Tibet has led to demonstrations, riots and deadly police suppression. The deeply rooted tensions between the Chinese government and Tibet erupted when hundreds of Buddhist Monks marched in the Tibetan capital, Lhasa, protesting educational restrictions on Tibetan religious schools. The demonstrators hoped to change the Chinese “patriotic” educational system, “in which monks are required to study government propaganda and write denunciations of the Dalai Lama” (Yardley, “Monk Protests in Tibet Draw Chinese Security”). Chinese security forces stopped the peaceful protesters, using tear gas.

In the days that followed, ordinary Tibetans protested in cities throughout the region, leading to even more violent crackdowns. The number of casualties varies based on sources. However, official Chinese news sources — in what are likely underestimates — have admitted that security forces used lethal force, leading to the deaths of 10 protesters. The Tibetan government, led by the Dalai Lama and operating in exile in neighboring India, claims that more than 80 demonstrators were killed by Chinese police. It is important to remember that the Chinese security forces are not exclusively culpable. Tibetan rioters attacked ethnic Han-Chinese and burned and looted Chinese businesses, forcing the security forces to respond. Information is limited, but it seems that both sides have contributed to the continuation of violence.

Nevertheless, the educational program, the suppression of the monks’ initial protest, and the restriction of foreign media in the area are evidence of authoritarianism in a country that is trying to balance open market policies with iron-fisted political and social control. Propaganda has historically been an important and powerful tool used by authoritarian regimes, such as China’s. In the eyes of Tibetans and many foreign observers, the educational restrictions in Tibet represent attempts by Beijing to “brainwash” students in the region and homogenize citizens throughout the country. The Dalai Lama, who defends cultural rather than political autonomy for Tibet, has called such policies “cultural genocide.” The violent crackdowns of the protests are the latest stains on China’s questionable human rights record. In addition to the imprisonment of political dissidents, such responses to political activism shows the lack of pluralism in China and of accountability of Chinese government. Political activists, however, are not the only ones to have been silenced by Beijing; the Chinese government has banned foreign news media from investigating the demonstrations and their violent aftermath. Clearly, these policies are geared toward retaining psychological, martial and informational control of the unstable region.

The violence in Tibet is a reminder that, despite China’s efforts to open its economy and improve its human rights reputation, the regime is still very much authoritarian.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/world/asia/18exiles.html?scp=21&sq=&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/world/asia/16tibet.html?scp=27&sq=&st=nyt

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/world/asia/15tibet.html?scp=28&sq=&st=nyt

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ObCigAg-Tjk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GJP1c9CssZI&feature=related